Editor’s Note: A number of people seem to be concerned about the Fire Sprinkler trade-offs included in the proposed new International Building Code. A number of opposition papers, using data from questionable reports, are being circulated by selective associations alleging that the IBC has gone too far and is therefore not a good code. The following is offered as an explanation of the trade-off concept to help clear up any confusion regarding sprinkler trade-offs.

What Are Sprinkler Trade-Offs?
Sprinkler Trade-Offs are really design and construction options that allow greater design flexibility while providing improved fire protection. They were developed over the last 30 years to encourage the use of sprinklers to increase the level of fire safety over the minimum level provided by model codes. Basically, they permit reductions in the normal passive fire protection requirements as an economic incentive where active fire suppression is provided. They are never intended to reduce the level of protection below that which is required for non-sprinklered buildings.

To understand the concept we must replace the current term "trade-off" with the term "Trade-Up." Using the current term insinuates that a lower level of safety is being accepted. In reality, by trading passive protection for active fire suppression, increased fire safety is achieved. Quite simply, buildings protected with sprinklers are safer and have dramatically lower fire losses than non-sprinklered buildings. Therefore, we will begin to use the proper term "Trade-Up" when referring to the sprinkler options.

Trade-Ups Have Been Successful
Some now say that there are too many Trade-Ups permitted in the new International Building Code. They allege that their application will compromise safety and create a huge fire problem. The fact is that all of the Trade-Ups offered in the IBC have been permitted in the model codes for many years. They have been successful, and where properly applied, have actually lowered construction costs. Their record of performance was the prime reason they were included by the committees in the development of the IBC. To date, no data has been presented that the use of any or all of the Trade-Ups has created any additional fire hazard.

Where are Trade-Ups Permitted?
The original Trade-Ups concept was based on sprinkler installations using NFPA 13. The code permitted the various Trade-Ups since the building was "fully sprinklered". Even though it satisfies NFPA 13. NFPA 13 permits omission of sprinklers from certain areas, a building is still considered fully sprinklered.

Trade-Ups should only be permitted within the areas where the active sprinkler protection is provided. This would include areas protected with either NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R systems. For example, a corridor rating may only be reduced where sprinklers are provided on both sides of the corridor wall. A reduction in attic draft stopping is permitted only when sprinklers are provided in the attic. Sprinklers located in one area do not justify a Trade-Up in another area.

Height and Area Trade-Ups for Sprinklers
The development of NFPA 13R created additional confusion. Attic sprinklers are not required by 13R. Unless sprinklers are provided in the attic, the required fire stopping must be installed. Floor area increases should be permitted for 13R systems since the floor areas are sprinklered. Corresponding increases in attic areas based on sprinklers on the floor below would not justify increased areas for the non-sprinklered attic. Reductions in the required attic draftstopping would only be permitted where the attic is sprinklered.

Height increases for 13R sprinklers should be permitted up to the four-story limitation of the standard. This is based on the theory that the attic is still the same size as permitted for a non-sprinklered building. Therefore, attic sprinklers would not be required to secure the height increase.

Height and area increases should also be permitted based on this principle. No additional non-sprinklered areas are being created. By providing sprinklers in the attics and concealed spaces the 13R provides similar protection to the NFPA 13 system.

What About Reliability?
Some people are concerned with the reduction or elimination of passive fire protection for an active suppression system that may be out of service or fail to operate. The latest statistics, however, reveal that the fire record for sprinklered buildings is nearly perfect, even in areas where the Trade-Ups have been permitted. Fire sprinklers have the best fire performance record of all passive or active systems.

To insure the reliability of all products and systems, building and fire prevention codes require inspection and testing during installation and prior to occupancy. They also require continual maintenance for the life of the building. Active fire suppression systems are also required to have periodic inspections and testing following occupancy. With the exception of single-family dwellings and limited area systems serving fewer than 20 sprinklers, systems are also required to be electrically supervised to insure that they are always on.

No such requirements are made for other passive fire protection items, such as monitoring that all fire doors are in the closed position or that the fire-stopping remains in place. Passive fire protection requirements are seldomly inspected, even though over the years they can deteriorate or be circumvented by building movement or alteration. An example of the failure of passive fire protection is the One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia. A fire that started on the 22^nd floor spread through the 30^th floor, despite the efforts of one of the best fire departments in the nation. Seven sprinklers on the 31st floor stopped the fire. This was considered to be a fireproof building. The damage was so severe that the building is now being demolished. Would we have even heard about this fire if sprinklers had been installed on the 22^nd floor?

What is Passive Fire Protection?
Passive fire protection means that the building structure is protected against "temperature generated" collapse until the fire department arrives and can suppress the fire. Fire resistance ratings up to 4-hours are required to protect against the extreme temperatures since the fire is able to burn freely without suppression. Fire separations of up to 4-hours are also used to limit the size of the fire. Buildings having 4-hour ratings are permitted to be unlimited in height and area by current model codes. However, the passive fire protection will not prevent a fire from occurring and may not be able to contain the fire when it does occur.

What is Active Fire Suppression?
Active fire suppression (fire sprinkler) systems react to a fire within minutes of ignition and often begin suppression before the fire department is notified. Minimal temperatures are generated since the fire is controlled shortly after ignition. The 4-hour fire resistance ratings are not required since the fire is not permitted to burn freely. Fire statistics clearly indicate the dramatic differences in life and property losses between sprinklered and non-sprinklered buildings.

Is Increased Fire Safety Needed?
Fire departments are being asked to do more with less. Response times are increasing as cities expand, manpower shortages will continue as municipalities try to hold the line on taxes. Traditional fire protection provided by the fire department is deteriorating in many areas of the country despite the dedicated efforts of firefighters. Studies such as the Scottsdale Report¹ clearly identify the sprinkler advantages for the entire community.

Trade-Ups encourage the voluntary installations of fire sprinkler systems. The Trade-Up issue has been debated many times over the years and has stood the test of time. Let's not be confused by insinuations and prophecies of impending fire losses. If there are weaknesses in the IBC based on use of Trade-Ups, lets carefully identify any problem and propose reasonable changes. Lets not eliminate the whole roof to fix a single shingle.

¹ Automatic Sprinklers, A Ten-Year Study, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition,

c/o National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA